Coalition Of Gun Rights Groups Challenge Big Banks Over Gun Industry Debanking History.

A group of gun-rights organizations is calling some big banks onto the carpet for their systemic history of debanking and otherwise discriminating against companies in the firearms industry.

According to a report at Foxbusiness.com, the Second Amendment groups are accusing some financial institutions of “revisionist history” in their attempts to whitewash past discrimination against gun and ammo manufacturers and retailers.

The six groups—NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), the American Suppressor Association (ASA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Gun Owners of America (GOA), National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)—sent a letter to the heads of JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and the Bank Policy Institute confronting them over their anti-gun history.

“As the unified voice of the Second Amendment community and millions of gun owners across America, we write today to address your ongoing debate about the future of banking,” the letter stated. “As you know, our industry faced relentless attacks and discriminatory treatment for decades. We have been shut out of mainstream financial institutions including by your banks and those your represent. The assault on gun manufacturers, retailers and aligned organizations has been a brazen and ideologically driven campaign to undermine the Constitutionally protected right of all Americans to keep and bear arms.”

Recently, the big banks had “come clean” and stated that they would no longer discriminate against gun industry members. And in August, President Donald Trump signed the Executive Order Guaranteeing Free and Fair Banking for All Americans.

Federal Court Says Post Office Carry Prohibition Unconstitutional
A federal court ruled that prohibitions on carrying firearms in post offices are unconstitutional. This ruling comes out of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On September 30, 2025, Chief United States District Judge Reed O’Connor delivered an opinion on Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et.al. v. Bondi. FPC is joined by the Second Amendment Foundation and two citizens —  Gavin Pate and George Mandry —  in challenging the federal law.

O’Connor wrote that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs’ (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property.” There’s nothing in the order limiting it to Texas and applies to all members of the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.

The complaint was originally filed in June 2024 and the named defendant was then-Attorney General Garland. “So if the government seeks to restrict firearms in a particular location as a ‘sensitive place,’ it must prove that its current restriction is sufficiently analogous to a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue,’” the complaint said.

This order in Texas comes at the heels of the Department of Justice dropping a bid for an appeal in a criminal matter involving carriage on U.S. Postal Service property. U.S. v. Ayala in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida involved defendant Ayala’s possession of a firearm on postal grounds. District Court Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle wrote that: “The United States fails to meet its burden of pointing to a historical tradition of firearms regulation justifying Ayala’s indictment under § 930(a).”

In Ayala, the Department of Justice dismissed their motion for an appeal in August. That move allowed Judge Mizelle’s order to stand.

“Millions of people across the country visit the U.S. Post Office as part of their daily routine,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in a statement. “As we’ve stated throughout this case, there is no historical tradition of banning firearms at post offices, and peaceable Americans all over the country should not be forced to choose between using basic postal services and the exercise of their fundamental rights. Today’s ruling is an encouraging step towards restoring these rights.”

The order applies to “ordinary post offices,” and explains, “Because Plaintiffs have agreed to limit their relief to ordinary post offices not located in restricted areas like military bases or where the Government provides armed security, the Court likewise limits its remedies to ordinary post offices.”

“This is a huge win for SAF and its members,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “There is no historical analogue to justify a ban on carrying a firearm on postal property, and we are pleased the court rightly saw through this thinly veiled attempt at preventing citizens from fully exercising their constitutional rights.”

Named plaintiff FPC observed in their statement that “Judge O’Connor explained, ‘it is hard to envision that the Founders would countenance banning firearms in the post office — particularly because they did not do so themselves. Thus, the Government has not carried its burden’ to justify its ban on carry in and around post offices. The Court thus held that the prohibition is ‘unconstitutional as-applied to carrying firearms’ inside a post office or on post office property.”

Speaking on behalf of FPC, Foundation President Brandon Combs noted that governments can’t ban weapons in “unsecured public spaces.” He further stated that governments also can’t “invent new so-called ‘gun-free zones’ whenever they please.”

“For too long, peaceable people have been threatened with prosecution simply for carrying weapons for self-defense while mailing a package or buying stamps,” Combs said. “That ends here.”

The victory in FPC v. Bondi is another step towards fully repatriating the people with a whole Second Amendment. Rather than turn into contortions of Cirque du Soleil proportions to find an analogue, the federal court found the government failed to meet the appropriate burden of proof — because there isn’t one.

Considering the Department of Justice’s recent withdrawal in the Ayala criminal possession case, it’s not likely they’ll seek an appeal in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. But you never know. We’ll be keeping up with this case and will be reporting back with any future findings.

Something to be aware of for those of us who do carry.

Overturn of Montana Man’s Conviction Illustrates Issue With Gun-Free School Zones

The Bruen decision left the door open on “sensitive places” that can be gun-free zones. Places like courthouses, for example.

For a lot of people, schools should definitely be on that list. I’m not so sure, but I can accept that some people disagree with me. They have a right to be wrong, after all, especially since we know that the gun-free zone thing doesn’t seem to keep bad people from carrying them onto the campus anyway.

But a case in Montana, where a man’s conviction was just overturned, highlights one major issue with gun-free school zones.

See, the issue isn’t just the schools, but a perimeter around the schools, and that’s what got him arrested.

A man who was convicted in federal court of firearms violations after menacing neighbors and an elementary school in Billings by carrying guns and patrolling the neighborhood has had his conviction overturned in a split decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a ruling earlier this week, the panel of three appellate judges said that Gabriel Metcalf’s conviction should be overturned because he offered a plausible interpretation and understanding of federal gun law, even while acknowledging that federal district court judge Susan Watters had a more straightforward and traditional definition of the law.

The majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a former Montana Solicitor General, noted that Metcalf appears to be the only person to test whether Montana’s open carry gun law complied with the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. In his appeal, Metcalf also raised concerns that his conviction also violated his Second Amendment rights, but the appellate court stopped short of deciding that issue, ruling instead that Metcalf’s interpretation of the law was plausible, and therefore he could not have known he was violating federal law.

Judge Mary M. Schroeder issued a dissenting opinion in the case, saying that VanDyke and Judge John B. Owens had reached their conclusion “by means of a tortured application” of judicial principles, even while acknowledging that Watters had the better and more traditional interpretation of state and federal law.

At the heart of the issue, at least in the case itself, is that Montana’s permitless carry law basically says that everyone who isn’t expressly forbidden from carrying a gun is considered licensed, and the federal law says people with licenses can carry in the buffer area around a school. The Biden administration argued that no, the licensing had to be explicit–something the law doesn’t seem to actually state, for the record–and so he was in violation of federal law.

Metcalf’s defense is that he literally had no reason to believe any such thing, which is fair.

However, a bigger issue is the existence of this area outside of the school grounds themselves.

See, the federal law doesn’t account for permitless carry as most states have it, nor does it account for things like reciprocity. You have to be licensed in that state in order to just walk past a school on the sidewalk, which is a problem.

This is something most people are going to be unaware of when traveling, for one thing, just as they’re not going to be aware of where all the schools in a given city might be. Just following Google Maps could land you a felony charge, simply because Google didn’t know you needed to be so many feet away from a school because you’re lawfully carrying a firearm.

It’s ridiculous.

If we’re going to insist that schools should be gun-free zones for law-abiding adults, can’t we at least agree that if someone intends anything malicious, stretching that zone out however many feet or isn’t going to actually stop them any better than the sign on the door will? Can’t we also agree that it’s ridiculous that people otherwise obeying the law, going about their day, might end up with a felony charge because they set foot outside of their house with a gun on their person, simply because they live in a constitutional carry state and live too close to a school?

Of course we can’t, because some people are so vehemently hoplophobic that they can’t accept anyone with a gun not being evil.

Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is impossible that a nation of infidels or idolaters should be a nation of freemen. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
– Patrick Henry

Any gun you have on hand is better than the one you aren’t carrying

The Case for Mouse Guns:
Is there any use for calibers smaller than 9mm?

Under certain circumstances, I sometimes carry small guns in small calibers, such as .380 ACP or .32 S&W. Upon learning this, people often express surprise and ask me how confident I am in successfully defending myself with a caliber smaller than 9mm. I take them down Memory Lane to 30 to 40 years ago, and tell them a story:

I grew up in a time when everyone “knew” 9mm was weak and the only serious choice for self-defense was a .45 ACP. The gun culture of the ’80s and ’90s treated caliber as gospel: a bigger bullet meant better “stopping power,” and if you weren’t carrying a full-size .45, you weren’t taking self-defense seriously. That conventional wisdom turned out to be … let’s just say not totally true. As our understanding of terminal ballistics has matured, we’ve learned that all service pistol calibers are inherently limited, and effectiveness has more to do with shot placement and penetration than bullet diameter.

I started out as a .45 ACP disciple in my youth (“…because they don’t make a .46”). Like many shooters of my generation, I believed I was better prepared because my pistol held a “serious” caliber. Years of training, experience and study stripped that illusion away. I learned that what matters most is not the size of the hole, but your ability to put that hole in the right place under stress and the ability of the cartridge to propel the bullet deep enough to poke holes in vital structures. This leads to a question: If gun culture was wrong about 9mm back then, perhaps we’re now wrong to dismiss sub-9mm calibers.

Continue reading “”

DOJ Issues “Relief From Disabilities” Proposal

On July 22, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a proposed rule to revive a statutory process for the restoration of Second Amendment rights lost under federal law as a result of convictions or other disqualifying circumstances. NRA-ILA will be submitting its own comments on the proposal, and we urge our members to do so as well. Thoughtful, pro-gun comments will ensure the best outcome for this critical program.

NRA often emphasizes that it represents peaceable, law-abiding gun owners. Yet the Second Amendment is a restraint on government; it is not a prize the government bestows only on whom it chooses. There are limits to the restrictions the government can place on gun ownership, even when (as is almost always the case) it claims to be acting in the interest of “public safety” or “keeping guns out of the wrong hands.” Rights restoration is an important corrective measure when the government’s “public safety” efforts overshoot the mark.

Continue reading “”

Even when the Police do happen to be only seconds away it took them minutes to ‘solve the problem’.

UPDATES: Ten Shot, Two Killed in Michigan LDS Church Shooting; Suspect’s Rampage Lasted 8 Minutes

At the brief 5 PM press conference, Chief Renye provided a brief timeline:

“The call came out at 10:25:32; we had officers on scene at 10:25:57. The suspect was neutralized at 10:33:24 in the parking lot of that church.”

According to people I’ve spoken to who are members of the Grand Blanc Ward, at least one of the congregants was an off-duty police officer.

Renye also confirmed that the suspect has been identified as Thomas Jacob Sanford, who is reportedly an Iraq War veteran. For more about

The next press conference will be held at 8 PM Eastern.

UPDATED 4:20 PM Eastern

According to Fox 6 Detroit, two people have now died after an attack on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints chapel in Grand Blanc, Michigan. The suspect has been identified as 40-year-old Thomas “Jake” Sanford of nearby Burton, Michigan, and law enforcement officials and the bomb squad are currently searching his residence.

Parishioner Brian Taylor and his wife were able to get out of the chapel, and while they were attempting to drive away, the suspect shot at their car. Taylor was injured by glass shards, but otherwise unhurt. Paula, the woman in the video below, and another woman were also in Taylor’s car.